PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RZG vs. IWC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RZG vs. IWC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) and iShares Micro-Cap ETF (IWC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RZG achieves a 18.31% return, which is significantly lower than IWC's 21.51% return. Over the past 10 years, RZG has underperformed IWC with an annualized return of 9.67%, while IWC has yielded a comparatively higher 11.58% annualized return.


RZG

1D
0.23%
1M
-0.59%
YTD
18.31%
6M
18.84%
1Y
32.35%
3Y*
17.17%
5Y*
5.01%
10Y*
9.67%

IWC

1D
-0.09%
1M
5.14%
YTD
21.51%
6M
25.02%
1Y
61.79%
3Y*
22.59%
5Y*
5.97%
10Y*
11.58%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RZG vs. IWC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RZG
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF
18.31%10.22%9.84%19.15%-29.00%21.01%17.76%14.25%-8.70%19.18%
IWC
iShares Micro-Cap ETF
21.51%22.45%13.63%8.99%-21.93%18.67%20.88%22.20%-13.13%12.79%

Correlation

The correlation between RZG and IWC is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.84

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.87

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.89

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.90

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 8, 2006

0.87

The correlation between RZG and IWC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

RZG vs. IWC - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RZG
IWC

Healthcare

22.0%
28.1%

Industrials

18.2%
13.3%

Technology

16.8%
18.4%

Financial Services

15.0%
18.1%

Consumer Cyclical

8.8%
5.3%

Real Estate

7.6%
3.5%

Consumer Defensive

5.9%
1.9%

Energy

3.0%
4.7%

Communication Services

1.9%
1.8%

Basic Materials

0.4%
4.4%

Utilities

0.4%
0.6%

Healthcare

RZG
22.0%
IWC
28.1%

Industrials

RZG
18.2%
IWC
13.3%

Technology

RZG
16.8%
IWC
18.4%

Financial Services

RZG
15.0%
IWC
18.1%

Consumer Cyclical

RZG
8.8%
IWC
5.3%

Real Estate

RZG
7.6%
IWC
3.5%

Consumer Defensive

RZG
5.9%
IWC
1.9%

Energy

RZG
3.0%
IWC
4.7%

Communication Services

RZG
1.9%
IWC
1.8%

Basic Materials

RZG
0.4%
IWC
4.4%

Utilities

RZG
0.4%
IWC
0.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

RZG vs. IWC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

RZG
RZG Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
RZG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5151
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RZG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
RZG Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
RZG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
RZG Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank

IWC
IWC Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
IWC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7575
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWC Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
IWC Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWC Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

RZG vs. IWC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) and iShares Micro-Cap ETF (IWC). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.


RZGIWCDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.75

2.64

-0.89

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.59

3.41

-0.82

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.41

-0.11

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.76

4.97

-1.21

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

12.60

16.48

-3.88

RZG vs. IWC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RZG Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is lower than the IWC Sharpe Ratio of 2.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RZG and IWC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


RZGIWCDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.75

2.64

-0.89

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.22

0.25

-0.03

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.39

0.48

-0.08

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.37

0.32

+0.05

Drawdowns

RZG vs. IWC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RZG drawdown since its inception was -58.52%, smaller than the maximum IWC drawdown of -64.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RZG and IWC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RZGIWCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-58.52%

-64.61%

+6.09%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.63%

-12.43%

+3.80%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.73%

-29.46%

+3.73%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.33%

-40.68%

+2.35%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-54.02%

-47.21%

-6.81%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.78%

-0.83%

-0.95%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.13%

-15.28%

+3.15%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.57%

3.75%

-1.18%

Volatility

RZG vs. IWC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) is 4.72%, while iShares Micro-Cap ETF (IWC) has a volatility of 6.90%. This indicates that RZG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RZGIWCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.72%

6.90%

-2.18%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.64%

17.20%

-3.56%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.57%

23.52%

-4.95%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.98%

24.40%

-1.42%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.65%

24.42%

+0.23%

RZG vs. IWC - Expense Ratio Comparison

RZG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than IWC's 0.60% expense ratio.


Dividends

RZG vs. IWC - Dividend Comparison

RZG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, less than IWC's 0.89% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWC
iShares Micro-Cap ETF
0.89%1.10%1.06%1.17%1.18%0.78%0.98%1.19%1.01%1.09%1.16%1.49%
RZG
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF
0.42%0.37%0.95%1.43%1.59%0.22%0.49%0.70%0.46%0.44%0.65%0.70%

Frequently Asked Questions


RZG and IWC have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWC has higher volatility (6.90%) compared to RZG (4.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RZG dropped -58.52% vs IWC's -64.61%.

On 10-year performance, IWC leads with 11.58% vs 9.67% for RZG. On fees, RZG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RZG has been the lower-risk option at 4.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWC has performed better with a 11.58% return vs 9.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RZG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for IWC.

IWC has the higher dividend yield at 0.89%, compared with 0.42% for RZG.

RZG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while IWC is Small Cap Blend Equities. RZG tracks S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Growth, while IWC tracks Russell Microcap Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RZG and 0.60% for IWC.

IWC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.64 vs 1.75), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RZG and IWC

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer